State rules don't apply to tribe's signs along I-5
The state can't do anything about it, though, because the advertisements are on land owned by the Stillaguamish Indian Tribe.
March 29, 2007
Stillaguamish eyesores
Casino sign is too tall? Too bad
State rules don't apply to tribe's signs along I-5An electronic sign and two billboards flanking I-5 near Arlington are too big and too close to exit ramps to pass muster with state transportation officials.
The state can't do anything about it, though, because the advertisements are on land owned by the Stillaguamish Indian Tribe. Comment: Even if this is legal, it's not a good idea.
State rules don't apply to tribe's signs along I-5
The state can't do anything about it, though, because the advertisements are on land owned by the Stillaguamish Indian Tribe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Why aren't the signs a good idea? Because they engender hard feelings toward Native people.
Here's a news flash for you Rob; there were already hard feelings toward Native people before the sign went up and there will be hard feelings toward them after the sign is long gone. The sign is just an excuse for people to vent their racist opinions.
Anonymouse
Spare me the so-called news flash. The sign has created more hard feelings than there were before, obviously. Since I didn't say the sign was the sole source of hard feelings, or that removing it would remove the hard feelings, let's not waste time pretending I did.
I'd protest that sign if it were in my backyard. I'd protest it whether Natives or non-Natives were responsible for it. So no, this particular protest has little or nothing to do with racism toward Natives.
Spare me your indignation. I know you didn't say the sign was the sole source of hard feelings nor was I implying that.
First let me explain, I do have an advantage over you which of course you're not aware of, I'm from Seattle and have relatives who live in Arlington whom I visit every a year. I can tell you with confidence that I-5 from Seattle to the Canadian border is littered with strip malls and billboards.
So when the article read and I quote "The thought of new billboards gives Stanwood resident Melody Lee a headache. She trains Arabian horses at Kenrock Equestrian Center about a quarter mile off exit 210. She said the casino has brought more traffic and lots of police sirens to the area.
(Tribes) have all these perks that they can do things without permits, and it just doesn't seem right to me," she said.
What exactly did she mean by lots of police sirens and Tribes have all these perks? hmmmm..
I agree with Mr Goodridge when he said "he's fed up with hearing complaints.There are several large billboards owned by private companies nearby, but few people complain about them.
When we do something, it's the crime of the century," he said. "When someone else does it, it's fine. They turn a blind eye."
Of course, no one wants billboards or large signs in their backyards, but it's not in someones backyard it's along an interstate and I would tell Ms. Lee what everyone has been telling Indians for years, AAH BOO HOO, JUST GET OVER IT.
Anonymous
Post Script: Oops, I meant to sign off with Anonymouse not Anonymous.
Vast stretches of America are littered with strip malls and billboards, Anonymouse, so you don't have any special insight there. In fact, my hometown of Los Angeles may be the strip mall and billboard capital of the world. I've experienced billboards and complaints about them firsthand.
Regardless, this sign is about 175 tall by my calculation. That's taller than the Statue of Liberty or a 10-story building. If it isn't the tallest billboard in the world, it must be a contender.
I understand that non-Natives are annoyed by many aspects of Indians (sovereignty, treaties) and Indian casinos (traffic, crime) that may or may not be legitimate. I've been writing about these things for almost 20 years. So again, spare me the "news flash." Tell me something that happened several decades ago and maybe I won't know about it.
You dug deep in the article to find a quote from someone with broader grievances. But why dig? The first non-Native quote in the article states the problem well enough:
"Even if they can do whatever the heck they want, this is so out of proportion to what seems appropriate," said Catherine Cloud of Stanwood.
Another quote notes how the sign violates state and federal regulations. Did Washington state and the federal government pass these regulations to get even with Indians? No, they passed them because they believed they were necessary to prevent traffic hazards.
I repeat that a 175-foot sign is a legitimate problem in its own right. It's over-the-top enough to exacerbate hard feelings among non-Natives. That's all I'm saying here, so don't waste time arguing about it. Not unless you can prove that a sign that tall will have absolutely no effect on non-Natives' feelings.
As for your comment, Russ, don't be stupid. With your resumé of Hollywood B-movies, you're the only sellout here.
Post a Comment